Abstract:In criminal trials, evidence often involves a degree of uncertainty and decision-making includes moving from the initial presumption of innocence to inference about guilt based on that evidence. The jurors’ ability to combine evidence and make accurate intuitive probabilistic judgments underpins this process. Previous research has shown that errors in probabilistic reasoning can be explained by a misalignment of the evidence presented with the intuitive causal models that people construct. This has been explored in abstract and context-free situations. However, less is known about how people interpret evidence in context-rich situations such as legal cases. The present study examined participants’ intuitive probabilistic reasoning in legal contexts and assessed how people’s causal models underlie the process of belief updating in the light of new evidence. The study assessed whether participants update beliefs in line with Bayesian norms and if errors in belief updating can be explained by the causal structures underpinning the evidence integration process. The study was based on a recent case in England where a couple was accused of intentionally harming their baby but was eventually exonerated because the child’s symptoms were found to be caused by a rare blood disorder. Participants were presented with a range of evidence, one piece at a time, including physical evidence and reports from experts. Participants made probability judgments about the abuse and disorder as causes of the child’s symptoms. Subjective probability judgments were compared against Bayesian norms. The causal models constructed by participants were also elicited. Results showed that overall participants revised their beliefs appropriately in the right direction based on evidence. However, this revision was done without exact Bayesian computation and errors were observed in estimating the weight of evidence. Errors in probabilistic judgments were partly accounted for, by differences in the causal models representing the evidence. Our findings suggest that understanding causal models that guide people’s judgments may help shed light on errors made in evidence integration and potentially identify ways to address accuracy in judgment.

Elementary Statistics on Trial (the case of Lucia de Berk)

On the (ab)use of statistics in the legal case against the nurse Lucia de B

Data selection and confounding in the court case of Lucia de Berk

Suspected serial killers and unsuspected statistical blunders

Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials

Searching for a Serial Killer on a Hospital Ward

Its All on the Square- The Importance of the Sum of Squares and Making the General Linear Model Simple

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

Truth, knowledge, and the standard of proof in criminal law

Statistical Literacy in the Police: Handling Statistical Information and Using it for Risk Assessments

Talking about Probability, Inference and Decisions. Part 1: The Witches of Bayes

Tasks in Statistical Inference for Studying Variation in Medicine

Infant Statisticians: The Origins of Reasoning Under Uncertainty

Defence Against the Modern Arts: the Curse of Statistics "Score-based likelihood ratios"

Connecting Simple and Precise P-values to Complex and Ambiguous Realities

Montecarlo Techniques as a tool for teaching statistics

Understanding overfitting in random forest for probability estimation: a visualization and simulation study

The distribution of power-related random variables (and their use in clinical trials)

Using evidence to make decisions

Against All Odds: When Logic Meets Probability.

The effect of confession evidence on conviction, and considering alternative scenarios as remedy in a sample of police officers